Massachusetts Real Estate Law 2012 Year In Review (And Predictions For 2013)

by Rich Vetstein on December 23, 2012

in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Disclosures, Fannie Mae, Foreclosure, HUD, Landlord Tenant Law, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Medical Marijuana, Mortgage Crisis, Realtors, Title Defects

2011-20121I always look forward to recapping the year that was, and bringing out the crystal ball to predict the year ahead. This year, like years prior, was an active year for Massachusetts real estate law, with several important court rulings, legislative developments, and emerging legal trends. The year 2013 is expected to be just as busy.

Eaton v. Fannie Mae and Fannie Mae v. Hendricks Foreclosure Rulings

Another year, another pair of huge foreclosure rulings by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. On June 22, 2012, in Eaton v. Federal Nat’l Mortgage Ass’n, the SJC held that lenders must establish they hold both the promissory note and the mortgage in order to lawfully foreclose. This posed major problem for the vast majority of conventional mortgages which lenders securitized and sold off on the secondary mortgage market, thereby splitting the note and mortgage among various securitized trusts and mortgage servicers. Responding to pleas from the real estate bar, the SJC declined to apply its ruling retroactively, thereby averting the Apocalyptic scenario where thousands of foreclosure titles would have been called into question. My prior post on the Eaton ruling can be read here.

The FNMA v. Hendricks case had the potential to change Massachusetts foreclosure practice, but the SJC rejected the challenge. The court upheld the validity of the long-standing Massachusetts statutory form foreclosure affidavit which provided that the foreclosing lender has complied with the foreclosure laws,rejecting the borrower’s claim that the affidavit was essentially robo-signed.

New Medical Marijuana Law Has Landlords, Municipalities Smoking Mad

Burned up Massachusetts landlords and anti-pot local pols are still fuming with concern over the state’s newly passed but hazy medicinal marijuana law. The law — rolling out Jan. 1 — mandates the opening of at least 35 medicinal marijuana dispensaries, and grants users the right to grow a two-month supply of marijuana at home if they cannot get to a dispensary because they are too sick or too broke. The new law also potentially opens landlords up to federal prosecution for violating the federal controlled substances laws. Many towns and cities are contemplating banning dispensaries or passing zoning by-laws regulating their locations. My prior post on the new marijuana law can be read here.

539wApartment Rental Occupancy Limits

In 2013, the SJC will consider the Worcester College Hill case which will significantly impact landlords renting apartments to students and in other multi-family situations. The question is whether renting to 4 or more unrelated persons in one apartment unit requires a special “lodging house” license which would, in most cases, make it cost-prohibitive to rent to more than 3 unrelated persons. (Lodging houses require a built-in fire sprinkler system, for example). The SJC will hear oral arguments in the case on January 7, 2013.

Foreclosure Prevention Act Passed

On August 3, 2012, Governor Deval Patrick signed the Foreclosure Prevention Act. The new law requires that lenders offer loan modifications on certain mortgage loans before foreclosing. Unfortunately, the law did not fix the problem with existing title defects resulting from the U.S. Bank v. Ibanez case in 2010. (Sen. Moore’s office plans to re-introduce Senate Bill 830 in 2013). My prior post on the new law can be read here.

SJC To Consider Realtor’s Liability for Erroneous MLS Info

Sometime in 2013, the SJC will issue a very important opinion in the controversial DeWolfe v. Hingham Centre Ltd. disclosure case where a Realtor was held liable for failing to verify the zoning of a listing on the Multiple Listing Service. The Court will also consider whether the exculpatory clause found in the Greater Boston Real Estate Board’s standard form purchase and sale agreement legally prohibits a buyer’s misrepresentation claim against the real estate agent. The Massachusetts Association of Realtors and the Greater Boston Real Estate Board have filed friend of the court briefs urging the SJC to limit Realtors’ disclosure obligations in the case. My prior post on the case can be read here.

Good Faith Estimate, TIL, and HUD-1 Settlement Statement To Change Dramatically

In the second major overhaul of closing disclosures in three years, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will be rolling out in 2013 a new “Lending Estimate” and “Closing Estimate” which will replace the current Good Faith Estimate, Truth in Lending Disclosure, and HUD-1 Settlement Statement. The changes are part of the Dodd-Frank Act, and has the lending and title insurance industries scrambling to figure out who should be ultimately responsible for the accuracy of closing fees and other logistics in delivering these new disclosures. My prior posts on the topic can be read here.

mw_1011_FISCAL_CLIFF_620x350Fiscal Cliff Anxiety Syndrome

The Year In Review would not be complete without mention of the dreaded Fiscal Cliff. As of this writing, President Obama and the House (which even rejected its own Speaker Boehner’s last proposal) have been unable to work out a deal to resolve the more than $500 billion in tax increases and across-the-board spending cuts scheduled to take effect after Jan. 1, 2013. If there is no deal, and the country goes over the fiscal cliff, the consensus is that it will have quite a negative effect on the economy and the real estate market in particular.

Upcoming Event! On January 8, 2013, we are sponsoring a breakfast seminar with veteran real estate journalist Scott Van Voorhis, who will offer his predictions on 2013. Please email me to sign up. The Facebook Event invitation is here. The venue is Avita in Needham, 880 Greendale Ave., Needham, MA.

_____________________________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein is an experienced Massachusetts real estate attorney who hopes the White House and Congress can get their acts together and pass a compromise bill to avoid the Fiscal Cliff.

{ 0 comments }

Lowell Mill Condominium Developer Hit With $300,000 Plus Judgment In Construction Defect Case

by Rich Vetstein on December 14, 2012

in Condominium Law, Construction Law, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Real Estate Litigation, Safety

Case Law Report:  Wyman v. Ayer Properties, LLC (Massachusetts Appeals Court, December 12, 2012).

ma-lowell-hamiltoncanal

Condo Construction Defect Claims Now Easier To Bring

In an important opinion which will make it easier for condominium associations to seek redress for faulty or defective construction, the Appeals Court has entered a $300,000 plus judgment against a Lowell based real estate developer. A link to the opinion can be found here.

Ayer Properties rehabilitated a vacant mill building on Market Street in Lowell, converting it into condominiums in the mid 2000’s. After the units were sold out, the new board of trustees discovered several aspects of faulty construction, including defective windows, deteriorating exterior brick masonry façade, and a leaky roof.  At the end of an 11-day jury-waived trial, a Superior Court trial judge awarded compensatory damages of $140,000, but eliminated well over $100,000 of the association’s claimed damages based on a legal defense called the economic loss doctrine.

The economic loss doctrine provides that a claimant must suffer some sort of property damage or personal injury in a negligent construction claim before being able to recover compensatory damages. The strict application of the economic loss doctrine in condominium construction defects can be quite harsh, often eviscerating thousands of dollars in damages simply because of the peculiarity of condominium ownership – the legal division and separation between common element property and individual unit owner property.

Justice Mitchell Sikora of the Appeals Court used some much-needed common sense and dispensed with the economic loss doctrine in the condominium construction defect setting:

We therefore hold that a condominium unit owners’ association may recover damages in tort from a responsible builder-vendor for negligent design or construction of common area property in circumstances in which damages are reasonably determinable, in which the association would otherwise lack a remedy, and in which the association acts within the time allowed by the applicable statute of limitations or statute of repose.

The impact of this decision will make it less difficult for condominium associations and trustees to sue and recover all damages against developers for construction defects. We could also see an increase in construction defect claims over faulty construction in the future.

______________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq.Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced condominium and construction litigation attorney. Please contact him at 508-620-5352 or [email protected].

{ 0 comments }

Hanging Off The Fiscal Cliff? What Will 2013 Bring To The Massachusetts Real Estate Market?

by Rich Vetstein on December 9, 2012

in Fannie Mae, FHA, Massachusetts Property Values, Mortgage Crisis, Realtors, Short Sales

High Anxiety Heading Into 2013

The term Fiscal Cliff should be as ubiquitous as “Merry Christmas” and “Happy Holidays” through the year-end, especially if President Obama and Congress cannot work out a deal to resolve the more than $500 billion in tax increases and across-the-board spending cuts scheduled to take effect after Jan. 1, 2013. If there is no deal, and the country goes over the fiscal cliff, the consensus is that it will have quite a negative effect on the economy and the real estate market in particular. (I debated using the word “disastrous” because there is a segment of commentators who say the housing market may survive a fall off the cliff).

There are four particular aspects of the Fiscal Cliff which could impact the real estate market.

1.  Expiration of Unemployment Benefits. Emergency jobless benefits for about 2.1 million people out of work will cease Dec. 29, and 1 million more will lose them over the next three months if Congress doesn’t extend the assistance again. Unemployed, even those receiving assistance, cannot and do not purchases homes. Democrats and President Obama want the unemployment benefits extended, but the Republicans are attempting to use this as leverage for their own fiscal cliff agenda. The real estate market will surely suffer if benefits aren’t extended.

2. Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act. The Mortgage Forgiveness Act is set to expire December 31. This tax break is critical for short sales, relieving homeowners from being taxed on any mortgage debt that was forgiven through a short sale, foreclosure or loan modification. If distressed homeowners are subject to tax on millions in debt forgiveness, short sales will likely decrease dramatically.

3. Mortgage Interest Tax Deduction. Once the sacred cow tax break for millions of middle and upper class homeowners, the mortgage interest deduction is reportedly on the chopping block. The National Association of Realtors and real estate groups have been apoplectic in urging no change to this important benefit to homeowners. Eliminating the mortgage deduction would raise taxes on all homeowners, and could dissuade renters from becoming homeowners.

4.  FHA/Fannie Mae Bailout. The Federal Housing Administration, the lender of choice for first-time homebuyers, is nearly insolvent and it could require a taxpayer bailout next year, according Edward J. Pinto, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Pinto claims the 78-year-old agency is $34.5 billion short of its legal capital requirement. “If it were a private company, it would be shut down,” argues Pinto. These aren’t the only issues threatening the real estate market. Since Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taken over by the government in 2008, taxpayers have plowed  $180 billion into them to keep them operational. This mess needs to be fixed next year.

Well, if your stomach isn’t in knots, mine is. Luckily, we have some medicine for you!

On January 8, 2013, we are sponsoring a breakfast seminar with veteran real estate journalist Scott Van Voorhis, who will offer his predictions on what 2013 will bring. Please email me to sign up. The Facebook Event invitation is here. The venue is Avita in Needham, 880 Greendale Ave., Needham, MA.

_____________________________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein is an experienced Massachusetts real estate attorney who hopes the White House and Congress can get their acts together and pass a compromise bill to avoid the Fiscal Cliff.

{ 0 comments }

Avoiding The Money Pit: Advice For Buying New Construction

by Rich Vetstein on November 29, 2012

in Closings, Construction Law, Home Inspections, Liens, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Offer To Purchase, Purchase and Sale Agreements, Realtors, Safety, Title Defects

With the economy and housing market on the upswing, builders are finally building again. I’ve seen a definite uptick in new construction purchases. Buying a new construction home, however, is very different and much more involved compared to buying a previously owned property. In this post, I want to cover the various aspects of purchasing a new construction home, from selecting a builder, financing, legal, through construction and to the closing. As the Beatles song goes, I also have a little help from my Realtor friends in this post who have graciously offered some of their expert guidance. Follow our advice, and hopefully you will avoid becoming Tom Hanks and Shelley Long in the hilarious movie, The Money Pit!

Selecting and Working with a Builder

Choosing the right builder is obviously critical. You can search for builder licenses and state disciplinary history at the Mass.gov site here. (Search under Construction Supervisor). If the builder is not a licensed Construction Supervisor, they may be licensed as a Home Improvement Contractor (HIC) which can be searched at the Office of Consumer Affairs website here. If they hold neither license type, that’s a red flag. Also, look up the builder’s name in the Mass. Land Records site, and check whether they have any mechanic’s liens filed against them. That is another red flag indicating they may be undercapitalized and don’t pay their subcontractors.

Get a list of the last 5 homes the builder has constructed, and try to talk to those homeowners. Don’t rely on the builder’s list of references as no intelligent builder would give out a bad reference.

Hire A Buyer’s Agent

Besides conducting a town-wide survey, one of the smartest things you can do is hire an independent buyer’s real estate agent, preferably one with lots of experience in new construction. While buyers today can do a lot of their own due diligence and research on prospective builders, an experienced Realtor knows all the local builders in town and knows who builds castles and who builds shanty-shacks. A buyer’s agent will also provide a much-needed buffer between the builder’s sales agents and listing agent, many of whom unfortunately engage in high-pressure sales tactics and fast-talking. As buyer agent, Marilyn Messenger advises,

“Many buyers don’t realize that if they visit a new construction site without a buyer agent, they run the risk of having to work directly with the builder’s agent whose job is to work in the best interest of the builder. A buyer’s agent will watch out for the buyer’s interests.”

Amenities, Allowances & Upgrades

The builder should provide you with a detailed specification sheet with a standard panel of features and options for flooring, appliances, paint, trims, HVAC, and lighting, etc. These will be built into the purchase price. Most builders also have allowances for things like additional recessed lighting, upgraded stainless steel appliances, decking, and fancy hardwood floors. As Cambridge area Realtor Lara Gordon notes, the buyers’ ability to select design elements is one of the major advantages of new construction.

It’s imperative that all allowances be spelled out in writing and attached to the purchase contract documents, which I will discuss later. Change orders are common during the construction process, and these too should be memorialized in writing. They will be added to the purchase price or paid in advance.

Contract Documents

New construction purchases in Massachusetts follow the same basic legal process as already-owned homes. The parties first execute an Offer to Purchase which spells out the very basics of the transaction: down payment and purchase price, closing date, and financing contingency. A lot of builders ask for more than the standard 5% deposit, but I would push back on that in this market.

After the offer is signed, the parties will sign the Purchase and Sale Agreement. As a buyer, the detailed specifications, amenities and agreed upon allowances must be incorporated into the contract, along with the floor and elevation plans, if any.

The proposed purchase and sale agreement will likely track the so-called “standard form,” but the builder will typically add a detailed rider, which is completely different than the usual seller rider seen in existing home contracts. The builder rider will have provisions dealing with how change orders are handled, that the builder is not responsible for cracking due to climatic changes, and may attempt to hold the buyer’s feet to the fire with respect to getting his financing in place. A lot of builders will try to limit the availability of holdbacks at closing. I would push back on this important item of leverage for buyers. Some of the large national builders such as Pulte will even claim that their contracts are “non-negotiable.” This is nonsense. Everything is negotiable these days.

Hiring an experienced real estate attorney will tip the balance back to the buyer, and the attorney should have a comprehensive buyer rider in place to protect you in case there are title issues or you suddenly lose your financing. Because there are often delays with new construction, one of the most important rider provisions for buyers is a clause which will give buyer’s protection in case they lose their rate lock due to a delay.

Mortgage Financing

Most new construction buyers in Massachusetts will take out a conventional mortgage loan, with the builder responsible for financing the actual construction through his own construction loan. Some builders, especially national ones, will have their own mortgage lending for their projects, but they often don’t offer the best rates and terms. Sometimes, buyers will finance the construction through a construction loan under which the borrower pays interest only through the construction process, and is then converted to a conventional mortgage once the home is completed. I would counsel buyers to avoid taking on the financial responsibility of a construction loan. As with all lending, shop around and compare apples to apples.

Inspections & Warranties

For new construction, home inspections must necessarily be delayed from the usual timeframe (7-10 days after accepted offer) where the home is not yet completed, and buyers should absolutely reserve their right to perform the usual comprehensive home inspection prior to closing. (If the home is already done, get in there with the home inspector). During the construction phase, builders don’t want buyers on the construction site, for obvious liability (and annoyance) reasons, so resist the urge to buy your own hard-hat and hang out with the construction guys. Metrowest area agent Heidi Zizza of mdm Realty retells a funny story about a Natick woman who literally broke a window trying to gain entry into her under-construction home.

Contrary to popular belief, Massachusetts law does not require a 1-year builder’s written warranty for new construction, however, most builders will provide one, albeit littered with exceptions to coverage. Fairly recent Massachusetts case law does impose a 3 year “implied warranty of habitability” for certain undiscovered construction defects. Again, selecting a reputable builder in the first place is “the ounce of prevention worth the pound of cure.”

Punch-Lists and Closing

There will inevitably be unfinished items right up to the closing. I’ve rarely seen a new construction transaction without a punch-list at closing. Some unfinished items will be serious enough to warrant an escrow holdback at closing (remember, I had said push back on this during P&S negotiations). Some lenders, however, will not allow a holdback, so the parties will have to negotiate and be creative at closing to ensure that all unfinished work is completed within a reasonable time after closing. If the home is part of a larger project/subdivision, this is usually not an issue. However, for “one-off” single site projects, getting the builder to come back and finish punch-list items after closing can be like pulling teeth. Again, having a real estate lawyer on your side and in control of the funds will give you leverage here.

Once papers are passed, the closing attorney will lastly ensure that there are no outstanding subcontractor liens on the property, which is one of most common hiccup at closings. For this reason and many others, it is imperative that buyers obtain their own owner’s title insurance policy, to ensure that title is clear, marketable and free of undiscovered defects and liens.

Buying new construction is often a long, drawn out, and stressful process for new buyers. Do your research. Be patient. And hire the best professionals on your side. Good luck!

________________________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts real estate attorney who often handles Massachusetts new construction home purchases. If you need assistance with a new construction purchase or sale, please contact him at 508-620-5352 or at [email protected].

{ 10 comments }

ABA Journal Names This Blog In Top 100 Blog List

by Rich Vetstein on November 26, 2012

in Blogging

The Massachusetts Real Estate Law Blog Selected To American Bar Association Journal’s Top 100 “Blawg” List

I’m honored to receive a major accolade in the legal blog publishing world:  Top 100 Blawg by the American Bar Association Journal (click the link for the full listing of Top 100 Blogs). This blog was the only real estate blog chosen out of hundreds of entries. Thank you to my dedicated readers, friends, and especially my wife and Mom, who voted for me numerous times under assorted aliases!

I’m flattered for the recognition and to be part of such a distinguished group of legal writers. The ABA has a nice quote about the Blog from a well-known industry professional:

“An excellent example of how to explain complex real property law and property use law to both interested law professionals and the lay public,” Ruth Dillingham, special counsel at First American Title Insurance Co. in Hyannis, Mass., wrote us. “Everyone cares about real estate.” Another reader praised the blog for keeping the state’s legal community up to date on the Eaton v. Federal National Mortgage Association case.

Now that the editors have made their picks, the ABA Journal is asking readers to weigh in and vote on their favorites in each of the 6th Annual Blawg 100’s 15 categories. Click here to register and vote. (You need to register with the site in order to vote — to prevent cheating). Voting ends at close of business on Dec. 21, 2012.

Some of my favorite fellow nominees are:

CFPB (Consumer Financial Protection Board) Monitor 
The New York Personal Injury Law Blog 
SCOTUS (Supreme Court) Blog
iPhone J.D.
Litigation & Trial by Max Kennerly, Esq.

~Rich

{ 0 comments }

Three Keys To Winning A Massachusetts Adverse Possession and Boundary Line Dispute Case

by Rich Vetstein on November 13, 2012

in Adverse Possession, Boundaries, Fences, Massachusetts Real Estate Law

property-line-survey-getty_f11341f289ae931d07403cac3726db78_3x2_jpg_300x200_q85Trial Report: Winiker v. Bell (Middlesex Superior Court CA 09-907)

I was lead trial counsel in a week-long adverse possession/boundary line dispute case back in August in Middlesex Superior Court before Judge Bruce Henry. We had closing arguments last week, and the judge’s decision just came down. I’m thrilled to report that we prevailed! Hard work (lots of it) does indeed pay off…

Judge Henry drafted a 13-page well-reasoned opinion, which I’ve embedded below. By and large, the judge accepted my view of the facts and the law, and cited many of the cases which I referenced in my briefs. The claimants, having been unable to establish adverse possession, were ordered by the judge to remove their driveway and retaining wall which encroaches onto my client’s property.

Some take-aways from the case:

  • Prepare, prepare, prepare. I had a lot more work on my side, with 8 testifying witnesses and a binder full of exhibits. I prepared for a solid two weeks before this trial, and by the trial, I knew every blade of grass and rock on the disputed area. I also had deposition testimony of the claimants which I used to impeach them when they inevitably changed their stories or failed to remember key details. I also had blowups of aerial photos of the property which were very helpful. Lastly, I convinced the trial judge to take a “view” of the property, so he could see the layout of the property himself. My opponent had much more trial experience than me, so I had to overcompensate by knowing the facts and law inside and out.
  • Track down old owners. Since my opponents were claiming adverse possession going back to the 1960’s, the first and most important thing we had to do was to track down all the old owners of my client’s property, and put together an accurate historical timeline of the property. Including my client, there were seven owners of the property! This was the only way my client could mount a defense against the claim. One of the old owners lived in Florida, and he came up to testify about having pig roasts near the disputed area, among other stories. Other former owners testified and a few were not exactly thrilled to be dragged into court.
  • Establish a theory of the case. Going into the trial, I knew that the claimants’ use of the disputed property — lawn mowing, landscaping, storing construction materials and snow plowing — was arguably not strong enough to establish adverse possession. I also knew that they did nothing to prevent the owners of my client’s property from accessing the disputed area. I hammered them continuously on each of the required elements of adverse possession, eventually punching holes in the foundation of their case. I also had to be a bit ruthless. My opponents’ age was in their 70’s, so I had to exploit their memory lapses. An amusing moment was when the husband produced an old photo of his 3 kids, but when questioned, could not remember the names or ages of his own children!

With yet another win under my belt, I have built a solid niche practice area in Massachusetts adverse possession law and boundary line disputes. I really enjoy working on these types of cases as they are factually intensive and usually have a fair share of nasty neighbor drama!

Listen to my recent radio appearance on boundary line disputes and adverse possession! Click play.

______________________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts adverse possession and boundary line dispute attorney who has tried numerous adverse possession cases in Land Court and Superior Court. Please contact me if you are dealing with a Massachusetts adverse possession dispute.

Samuel Winiker v. Kimberly BellJudgment, Findings of Fact and Rulings of Law

{ 2 comments }

Massachusetts Municipalities and Residents Gearing Up For Battle Over Medical Marijuana Dispensaries

by Rich Vetstein on November 11, 2012

in Massachusetts Property Values, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Medical Marijuana, Permitting/Zoning, Safety, Zoning

Breaking: Attorney General Strikes Down Wakefield Ban on Dispensary

Hazy Legal Landscape Providing Angst to Town Planners

Massachusetts voters overwhelmingly approved the Medical Marijuana Ballot Initiative/Question 3 (click for full text), opening the door to the opening of at least 35 medical marijuana dispensaries throughout the state in 2013. But, the bigger question is whether the same voters and town leaders will support the opening of dispensaries on their own street corners and downtown areas. Many towns and cities are already gearing up for a fight over the locations, as one marijuana law firm is already scheduling seminars on how to open up dispensaries in Framingham. In litigious Massachusetts, we can certainly expect aggrieved abutters to challenge the opening of what they call “pot shops” next to their residences and businesses. The actual opening of marijuana dispensaries could be years away due to litigation and opposition.

Up To 35 Marijuana Dispensaries in 2013

The ballot law authorizes the opening of up to 35 dispensaries in 2013, and the Department of Public Health retains authority to open more later if demand is there. The law requires that at least one dispensary must be located in each of Massachusetts’ 14 counties, but caps each county at no more than 5 locations. The law seeks an accelerated rollout of dispensaries. Treatment centers can file applications as early as January 1, 2013, and open up to 120 days later, subject to the rollout of regulations by the state Department of Public Health.

Possible Target Locations

Based on size, county seat, and demographics, likely locations for marijuana dispensaries in Eastern Massachusetts would include: ((This is my own opinion/analysis.))

  • Boston, Roxbury/Dorchester/Mattapan, South Boston (Suffolk County)
  • Cambridge, Lowell, Framingham, Marlborough, Waltham, Woburn (Middlesex County) ((The location of dispensaries in Middlesex county — Massachusetts’ most populous county — will be a huge battle.))
  • Lawrence, Salem, Peabody, Lynn (Essex County)
  • Dedham, Quincy, Brookline, Franklin (Norfolk County)
  • Brockton, Plymouth, Middleboro (Plymouth County)
  • Taunton, New Bedford (Bristol County)
  • Worcester (Worcester County)

A Smoky Legal Landscape

The ballot provision, however, is very murky as to how cities and towns are supposed to handle the potential influx of dispensaries. This is causing town leaders to scramble for legal guidance as to whether they should either attempt to block locations wholesale or enact special zoning districts regulating the placement of dispensaries.

As for any attempt to block the opening of marijuana centers, the question will have to be answered by the courts as the law is silent as to whether municipalities have this power. The legal issues surrounding municipal zoning and siting of medical marijuana dispensaries will likely follow similar cases involving methadone clinics, alcohol treatment centers/sober houses and even adult entertainment venues — all uses which are legal, yet subject to reasonable zoning governance. Additionally, treatment centers could seek protection from the American’s With Disabilities Act and other disability laws which protect cancer, HIV, glaucoma and other qualified patients who are entitled to receive medical marijuana.

I am of the opinion that a municipality cannot enact an ordinance or by-law which will block a marijuana dispensary from opening in town as long as the dispensary has complied with all DPH regulations. The town, however, can utilize its zoning powers to regulate where in town such a dispensary can be located, so long as the town does not enact illegal “spot zoning” in so doing.

While medical marijuana may have passed fairly easily on Election Day, it will probably be some time before Massachusetts sorts out all the legal issues as to where these dispensaries should go.

I am going to keep this post updated with news articles and posts about the new law and reaction to it, below.

_____________________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experience Massachusetts zoning and real estate attorney. If you are concerned or have questions about the new Medical Marijuana Law, please contact him at [email protected].

{ 8 comments }

Massachusetts Landlords Smoking Mad About New Medicinal Marijuana Law

by Rich Vetstein on November 10, 2012

in Housing Discrimination, Landlord Tenant Law, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Medical Marijuana, Rental Housing, Safety

Concern Over 60 Day Supply Provision & Federal Ban On Pot

Burned up Massachusetts landlords are fuming with concern over the state’s newly passed but hazy medicinal marijuana law. The law — rolling out Jan. 1 — grants medical marijuana users the right to grow a two-month supply of weed at home if they cannot get to a marijuana dispensary because they are too sick or too broke. The new law also potentially opens landlords up to federal prosecution for violating the federal controlled substances laws.

Skip Schloming, executive director of the state’s Small Property Owners Association, expressed deep concern about the 60-day supply provision:

“You could have as many as 24 plants that are 6 feet tall,” Schloming told the Herald. “And that could cause all sorts of property damage, from water damage, to mold and humidity, to wiring issues that could cause a fire. … This has the potential to be a disaster.”

The SPOA called for a 6 month delay in implementing the law.

I hate to be a “buzz kill” for medical marijuana users, but I believe the landlords have a legitimate gripe. In the landlord-tenant context, landlords own the property and remain primarily responsible for what goes on in their apartment buildings. I’m no weed expert, but imagine a small studio apartment loaded with a veritable jungle of pot plants — a prospect which would frighten any residential landlord for a number of reasons.

First, a medical marijuana grower could be targeted for burglarization. If they are truly sick and broke enough to qualify as home growers, then they would be equally vulnerable to pot bandits stealing their stash.

Second, maintaining marijuana cultivation requires specialized equipment not necessarily compatible with close-knit apartment living. I did some research, and found this website dedicated to hydroponic growing equipment. Growing marijuana plants is fairly sophisticated. Growers need to monitor pH and moisture levels, carbon dioxide outputs and germination of seeds. Failure of this equipment could conceivably cause mold, mildew and other damage to interior units.

Bay State landlords are also concerned about running afoul of federal drug laws as marijuana remains a federally prohibited controlled substance. Landlords are begging Beacon Hill lawmakers to give them the right to refuse to rent to tenants who grow pot for medical use over fears their property could be seized. As reported in the Boston Herald, commercial and residential landlords are right to worry, drug forfeiture attorneys say, because landlords can be charged as conspirators if their tenants are targeted by the feds.

No matter landlords’ concerns, medical marijuana is here to stay in Massachusetts. It will be up to the state Department of Public Health — the same agency rocked by the highly publicized state crime lab fiasco — to enact sensible rules and regulations governing medical marijuana. Let’s hope that the DPH considers the practicalities and logistics for marijuana growing in tight-knit apartment buildings. Strict rules on home growing eligibility are a must. Same for the approval of safe, tested growing equipment. Immunizing landlords from liability for medical marijuana growing or use by tenants would be another good idea.

We will see how it all plays out on Beacon Hill…

_________________________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is a Massachusetts real estate attorney who handles landlord-tenant matters and evictions throughout the state. He can be reached at [email protected].

 

{ 3 comments }

Lender/Settlement Agent Regulatory Alert: Nov. 6 Deadline to Prevent Proposed CFPB Disclosure Rule From Delaying Closings

by Rich Vetstein on November 4, 2012

in Closings, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Disclosures, HUD, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, RESPA, Truth in Lending

Mandatory 3 Business Day Waiting Period Will Delay Closings

Action Needed: Comment On Proposed Rule

While our attention has been diverted from more important issues such as Hurricane Sandy and the election, please be advised that November 6, 2012 is the last day for lenders, settlement agents, Realtors and the public to comment on the controversial new combined Truth and Lending/HUD-1 Disclosure rules proposed by the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). For those who don’t know, the CFPB has proposed a major overhaul to closing disclosures, combining the Truth In Lending and the HUD-1 Settlement Statement into a single 5 page disclosure form.

Of paramount concern to the real estate community is the proposed Three Business Day Rule, which would require that lenders provide the final Closing Disclosure (the new HUD-1) at least 3 business days prior to the closing. The major problem with this rule is that if there are changes in settlement and closing figures between the time of disclosure and the closing, the consumer must be provided a new form, and the closing must be delayed for at least 3 business days. ((There is an exception for adjustments between buyer and seller, such as a repair credit and for items under $100.))

In today’s lending environment, last minute changes to settlement numbers are common, and given the crush of underwriting tasks, final closing figures are typically provided 24-48 hours prior to the closing, or even the day of closing. Moreover, there are often delays getting information from outside sources — real estate tax information from municipalities, insurance information from independent agents, final water/sewer readings, oil bills and 6d condo fees from Realtors, and payoffs from sellers — all of which are out of the control of the lender and the closing attorney.

If there are last minute changes to settlement numbers, the proposed rule will delay closings for at least 3 business days, which could be catastrophic. This will have an unintended ripple effect on both the borrower and other parties, especially where the borrower is doing a “sell-buy” on the same day.

The CFPB is out of touch with the real estate industry on this rule. Indeed, at a recent symposium on the new rules, the CFPB’s new general counsel was reported as being very surprised that last-minute changes in settlement figures were relatively common. Delaying closings for 3 business days through delays of no fault of the lender or settlement agent hurts all the parties to the transaction. The rule is regulatory overkill.

CLICK THIS LINK TO COMMENT ON THE NEW CFPB RULE (CLICK SUBMIT A FORMAL COMMENT)

Tell the CFPB that the 3 Business Day Rule is a bad idea, and give anecdotal stories about how delays in closings will affect your business. And please share this post with fellow lenders, mortgage bankers, closing attorneys and Realtors.

________________________________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is a Massachusetts real estate attorney with offices in Framingham and Needham, MA. You can reach him at [email protected].

{ 2 comments }

Cleaning Up After Hurricane Sandy: Homeowner’s Insurance Coverage & Downed Trees

by Rich Vetstein on October 30, 2012

in Condominium Law, Insurance, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Septic/Title V

Massachusetts Homeowner’s Insurance Coverage for Hurricane Damage

Although Massachusetts was spared a direct hit by Hurricane Sandy, there are widespread reports of flooding and property damage. Whether the damage to your home from Hurricane Sandy is covered by your homeowner’s insurance policy depends on the source of the damage. Typically, damage caused by wind, downed trees and power outages are covered. However, flooding caused by rain or surface water is typically not covered. I will explain each below.

Wind Damage/Downed Trees

The standard Massachusetts homeowners insurance policy typically covers damage caused by wind — including broken windows, torn roofs and any interior damage from trees or limbs falling into the home. (If a tree falls onto a car, many comprehensive auto policies will cover the damage.)

Some policies, however, require that homeowners pay a hefty deductible before homeowners’ insurance policies kick in for wind damage — often 1% to 5% of the total amount the home is insured for.

Power Outages

The hurricane has left hundreds of thousands of Massachusetts customers without power. Homeowners’ insurance policies typically cover any property damage caused by electrical outages due to a hurricane. Some policies will even reimburse you for spoiled food.

Flooding and Water Damage

Flooding — defined by insurers as any water that rises from the ground or from the sky, including tidal waves — is typically not covered by Massachusetts homeowner’s insurance policies. If your home has flooded due to coastal ocean storm surge, rising streams, ponds or wetlands or from surface water, your homeowner’s policy will unfortunately likely not cover the damage.

To get reimbursed for hurricane flooding damage, homeowners would have already secured federal flood insurance. The average flood premium is about $600 annually, but rates go up to nearly $6,000 for the highest-risk coastal properties, according to the National Flood Insurance Program.

Homeowners who live in flood zones usually have flood insurance already: Many lenders won’t provide these home buyers with a mortgage unless they’ve signed up for flood coverage. These homeowners can rest (relatively) easy; if their home floods, flood insurance will pay for that damage. Those unlucky homeowners in the interior parts of the state aren’t so lucky.

Condominiums

Hurricane damage to condominiums raise special concerns. The coverages are typically the same as outlined above, however, there is usually a question as to whether the master condominium insurance policy or the HO-6 homeowner policy will be the primary policy in play. That depends on whether the damage originates from a common area or inside a unit and the particular provisions of the master deed and by-laws.

Serious Damage

If a home becomes so damaged that it’s uninhabitable, most standard homeowner policies will pay for a family’s living expenses — including lodging and food — while the house is being repaired.

Making An Insurance Claim

As with any insurance damage claim, my advice has always been document, document, document. Take photos and video of the damage. Keep all receipts for fans, blowers, wet vacs, sump pumps, repairs, new windows, etc. Be prepared to wait for the insurance companies to process the thousands of claims arising from Hurricane Sandy.

Liability For Fallen or Downed Trees

Given all the trees and branches which fell across New England, the pressing question of the day is, clearly, who is responsible if my neighbor’s tree or tree branch fell on my house, car, shed, patio, grill, etc. during the storm?

Under Massachusetts law, an owner of a healthy tree which falls during a hurricane or storm is generally not liable for any damage because the law considers this an “act of nature” for which no one is legally liable. Thus, if your neighbor’s tree has fallen on your house or car, you will have to make a claim under your and/or your neighbor’s homeowner’s insurance policy for the damage.

On the other hand, if the neighbor’s tree was diseased or decayed, was known to be at risk of falling and the neighbor ignored it, there could be negligence and liability. Either way, if you have homeowner’s insurance, the insurance companies will sort out fault and blame.

Local Insurance Claims Numbers

Acadia Insurance (800) 691-4966
AIG (Global Energy) (877) 743-7669
Chartis (formerly AIG) Private Client Group 888-760-9195
Andover Companies: Cambridge Mutual & Merrimack Mutual (800) 225-0770
Chubb Group (800) 252-4670
Commerce (800) 221-1605
Fireman’s Fund (888) 347-3428
Great American (888) 882-3835
Guard Insurance Group (888) 639-2567
Hanover Insurance (800) 628-0250
Hartford Insurance (800) 327-3636
Hingham Mutual (After hours claims) (800) 972-5399
Mass. Property Insurance Underwriting (800) 851-8978
Trident (After hours claims) (800) 288-2502
Tower (877) 365-8693
Quincy Mutual (800) 490-0047
Safety Insurance (800) 951-2100
Selective Insurance (866) 455-9969
Splash Program (Emergency Pollution related claims) (866) 577-5274
Splash Program (Emergency Non-Pollution related claims) (800) 746-3835
Travelers Personal lines:
(877) 425-2466
Commercial:
(800) 832-7839
Utica National (800) 216-1420
Vermont Mutual (After hours claims) (800) 445-2330
Zurich/Maryland (800) 565-6295

____________________________________

Richard Vetstein is a Massachusetts real estate attorney. If you have any property damage questions, please contact him at [email protected].

{ 1 comment }

Breaking: SJC Rejects Major Challenge to Massachusetts Foreclosure Procedures

by Rich Vetstein on October 26, 2012

in Foreclosure, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Mortgage Crisis

Impact: Foreclosure Will Be Harder to Challenge

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s (SJC) ruling in Federal National Mortgage Ass’n v. Hendricks just came down, and it’s good news for the foreclosure industry and bad news for distressed homeowners.

This case had the potential to change Massachusetts foreclosure practice, but the SJC rejected the challenge. The borrower, Oliver Hendricks, challenged the validity of the long-standing Massachusetts statutory form foreclosure affidavit which provided that the foreclosing lender has complied with the foreclosure laws. Rejecting the borrower’s claim that the affidavit was essentially robo-signed, the Court upheld the statutory form affidavit.

The case arose when Fannie Mae was attempting to evict Hendricks after the foreclosure. The court’s ruling provides that foreclosing lenders need only submit a valid foreclosure deed and statutory form affidavit during an eviction proceeding; the burden of proof then shifts to the borrower to come up with evidence of foreclosure irregularities. This has proven very difficult for distressed homeowners and their attorneys.

After this decision (and a recent Appeals Court ruling taking away a common eviction defense for post-eviction squatters), foreclosures and post-foreclosure evictions will be much harder to challenge. Also, we’ll likely see an acceleration of the pace of foreclosures, evictions of holdover borrowers, and a shrinking inventory of foreclosed and REO properties. Although distressed homeowners may be worse off, the overall real estate market stands to improve due to this ruling.

I’ll have more analysis later. The decision is embedded below. Also below is a video of the defendant, Olive Hendricks, speaking about his predicament produced by CityLife.

FNMA v. Hendricks

{ 4 comments }

Hurricane Sandy Massachusetts Real Estate Impact & Preparedness Bulletin

by Rich Vetstein on October 25, 2012

in Insurance, Massachusetts Property Values, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Safety

Impact on Pending Home Sales and Refinances

Meteorologists are now predicting that early next week Hurricane Sandy will either pass close by or make a direct impact on New England. This storm is potentially huge, rivaling last year’s Hurricane Irene and the Perfect Storm of 1991.

  • If you are closing on a property next week, you may want to consider pushing up the closing to before the hurricane makes landfall on early Tuesday. I realize that may not be possible at this point, but it’s worth a shot.
  • If you have not secured a homeowner’s insurance policy, you should probably wait until the storm passes as most carriers will not write new policies right now.
  • If you are closing on a purchase or refinance after the storm passes — and especially if the Federal Government declares a Federal Disaster Area –be prepared to have a re-inspection of the property before closing. A hurricane considered to be an Act of God and as a result the borrower will be required to pay for any re-inspection fee. These re-inspections range from $125 to $200. You will receive notice from your lender and re-disclosures prior to closing. This will also likely delay your closing
  • If there is substantial damage to a home you are purchasing, you’ll have to look to your purchase and sale agreement as to whether you have a right to pull out of the deal or proceed, provided you get the benefit of any insurance proceeds.

Hurricane Safety Precautions & Information

Important Links

Pre-Planning:

  • Plan an evacuation route to the nearest shelter or “safe” area and keep a map handy. During emergencies, shelter locations will announced on the radio.
  • Replenish emergency kits and supplies.
  • Get lots of batteries and flashlights!
  • Secure important documents from possible damage or move to a safe location.
  • Develop a list of important phone numbers.
  • Develop a plan to secure loose objects around the house; trim branches and trees.
  • Ensure that your pets have collars and identification tags.

Prior to the Hurricane:

Secure all loose objects outdoors.

  • Secure all windows using plywood.
  • Fill your vehicle with fuel.
  • Charge all batteries (i.e. phone, lamps, flashlights, radios, etc.)
  • Listen to the emergency broadcasts of the storm.
  • Be prepared to evacuate with emergency supplies to a predetermined location.

During the Hurricane:

Stay in doors and away from windows.  Keep to the center of the building on the ground level.

  • Listen to the emergency broadcast on the radio or television.
  • Turn off all electrical devices and appliances that are not needed.
  • Stay away from coastal waters, rivers, streams or other flooding areas.
  • Do not try to cross flooded areas with your vehicle.
  • Listen for instructions from emergency officials when the storm is over.

Emergency Supplies and Kits:

First aid kit and personal medications

  • Drinking water
  • Ice Chest
  • Lighter, matches and candles
  • Clothing, personal toiletries
  • Sleeping bags and blankets
  • Portable radio and flashlight
  • Extra batteries
  • Non-perishable foods
  • Manual can opener
  • Important documents
  • Quiet games, books, or toys for children

Local Insurance Claims Numbers

Acadia Insurance (800) 691-4966
AIG (Global Energy) (877) 743-7669
Chartis (formerly AIG) Private Client Group 888-760-9195
Andover Companies: Cambridge Mutual & Merrimack Mutual (800) 225-0770
Chubb Group (800) 252-4670
Commerce (800) 221-1605
Fireman’s Fund (888) 347-3428
Great American (888) 882-3835
Guard Insurance Group (888) 639-2567
Hanover Insurance (800) 628-0250
Hartford Insurance (800) 327-3636
Hingham Mutual (After hours claims) (800) 972-5399
Mass. Property Insurance Underwriting (800) 851-8978
Trident (After hours claims) (800) 288-2502
Tower (877) 365-8693
Quincy Mutual (800) 490-0047
Safety Insurance (800) 951-2100
Selective Insurance (866) 455-9969
Splash Program (Emergency Pollution related claims) (866) 577-5274
Splash Program (Emergency Non-Pollution related claims) (800) 746-3835
Travelers Personal lines:
(877) 425-2466
Commercial:
(800) 832-7839
Utica National (800) 216-1420
Vermont Mutual (After hours claims) (800) 445-2330
Zurich/Maryland (800) 565-6295

Good luck!!!!

{ 0 comments }

Top 10 Real Estate Internet Resources

by Rich Vetstein on October 21, 2012

in Blogging, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Real Estate Marketing

I thought it would be a good idea to list my Top 10 favorite websites, blogs and other internet sites for real estate. These include law blogs, local and national real estate sites, and even marketing blogs. Feel free to bookmark this post!

1.  HousingWire

This is one of the best national sites for staying up to date on current real estate economic data, mortgage trends, Fed policy, and regulations.

2. Wall Street Journal Developments

You can’t go wrong with the Wall Street Journal, right? Some of the best real estate reporters and commentators contribute to this site. A must read on your Google Reader list.

3. Massachusetts Land Records

This is the main portal into the vast majority of the Massachusetts Registries of Deeds. From here you can look up the deeds, mortgages and liens on virtually any property in the state. If you need a guide to searching the online registry of deeds and a full listing of every registry, read this post.

4. Charles Gate Realty’s Boston Real Estate Blog

I really love this frequently updated blog by the team of tech savvy agents at Charles Gate Realty. It’s also a great resource for rentals which is often ignored in the blogosphere.

5. Agent Genius

An online real estate magazine with a robust editorial staff, covering a wide range of topics, including tech and social media, business news, and also good op-ed pieces.

6. (tie)

SmarterBorrowing.com

Maintained by well-known mortgage banker, Brian Cavanaugh of RMS Mortgage, this is one of the best mortgage lending blogs out there, frequently updated with current news on the mortgage market.

The Massachusetts Mortgage Blog

Written by the extremely knowledgeable David Gaffin of Greenpark Mortgage.

7. Boston.com Real Estate Now Blog

This is Boston.com’s popular real estate blog managed by buyer’s agent, Rona Fishman, and reporter/writer Scott Van Voorhis. The blog has a very active group of trolls commenters who frequently stir up lively debate. Disclaimer: I contribute a weekly post to this blog.

8. Massachusetts Land Use Monitor

The very experienced group of attorneys at the venerable real estate firm of Rackemann, Sawyer are one of the few large firms who blog, and thankfully they do, because they have a wealth of knowledge and information to share. The blog is managed by Donald Pinto, who’s one of the best real estate attorneys in the Commonwealth and a really good guy.

9. Centers & Squares

Real estate agent bloggers and wanna-be’s, pay close attention. This is how you blog. This is a great and frequently updated blog all about “the city squares of Cambridge, Somerville and Medford and the town centers of Arlington, Watertown and Belmont.” Written by Elizabeth Bolton, Realtor.

10. Inman Next Agent

Must read for keeping up with the latest in real estate technology, marketing, and social media. Contributors includes the well-known social media evangelists, Chris Smith and Katie Lance.

Honorable Mentions

Cambridgeville

Another standout blog from the Cambridge-Somerville area. Realtor Lara Gordon is a smart, witty writer who keeps her blog frequently updated with urban gems such as the worst places for bike crashes (Harvard Square, of course!), the Somerville Foodie Crawl, and her own photos of the new Charlestown-Cambridge footbridge (I wish more agents did this).

Living in Sudbury

Formerly a global marketing guru at ESPN, Realtor Gabrielle Daniels is the epitome of sass and sharp real estate writing. OMG, you must read her post, Translating Real Estate Ads: 101. Some Descriptions Will Have You ROFL.

Western Mass Living

Our sole entry west of I-495, Lesley Lambert has been blogging and tweeting forever, mixing posts about the Berkshire County lifestyle with a peek into her personal “Dancing Queen” passion.

Curbed Boston

This is a nationally syndicated blog with a local feel. Recent posts include the opening of Southie’s Gate of Heaven Gym, a new Mexican joint in Brookline and new fixer-upper in Inman Square.

Well, that’s my list. Feel free to add your favorite sites to the comments, and we can expand this list!

_________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is a Massachusetts real estate attorney who is passionate about staying up to date on real estate issues, nationally, regionally and locally.

 

{ 1 comment }

Who You Gonna Call? Ghostbusters! Selling A Haunted House and Other Tales of the Paranormal

by Rich Vetstein on October 15, 2012

in Disclosures, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Real Estate Marketing, Realtors

My kids (ages 9 and 6) are really into Halloween this year, convincing me into spending over $100 on laughing tombstones, zombies and other decorations at iParty over the weekend. I love Halloween, and enjoy when people go all out on decorating their homes.

But what if your house is truly haunted? Or you are a broker trying to sell a home which may have a paranormal past, like the scene of a murder of suicide? How can you protect yourself from buying a haunted house?

In Massachusetts there’s a law for that! Seriously….

Under Massachusetts law, real estate brokers and sellers are under no legal obligation to disclose that a property was the site of a felony, suicide or homicide, or has been the site of an alleged “parapsychological or supernatural phenomenon,” i.e., a haunted house.

Here is the law, Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93, section 114:

The fact or suspicion that real property may be or is psychologically impacted shall not be deemed to be a material fact required to be disclosed in a real estate transaction. “Psychologically impacted” shall mean an impact being the result of facts or suspicions including, but not limited to, the following:

(b) that the real property was the site of a felony, suicide or homicide; and

(c) that the real property has been the site of an alleged parapsychological or supernatural phenomenon.

No cause of action shall arise or be maintained against a seller or lessor of real property or a real estate broker or salesman, by statute or at common law, for failure to disclose to a buyer or tenant that the real property is or was psychologically impacted.


Thus, real estate agents have no legal duty to inform buyers that a house has a paranormal past. (I’m sure some agents would so inform their buyers, but legally buyers are on their own to discover these types of stigmas).

Of course in this digital era, an easy way to determine whether a house is truly “haunted” is to Google the property address and the last few prior owners and see what comes up. If there was a murder or suicide–or even ghosts– it should reveal itself. Of course you can always hire Ghostbusters.

___________________________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is a Massachusetts real estate attorney. He is debating between dressing up as Darth Vader or the Pirate Jack Sparrow this Halloween.

{ 1 comment }

Why Have Obama And Romney Ignored the Housing and Real Estate Market?

by Rich Vetstein on October 8, 2012

in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Fannie Mae, Foreclosure, HUD, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Mortgage Crisis, Realtors, Rental Housing

All Politics Aside, It’s Time To Bring Housing & Real Estate Back To the Forefront

In the most tweeted, Facebook-ed and instant polled Presidential Campaign ever, there is one topic which has been met with surprisingly deafening silence: the U.S. Housing and Real Estate Market. During last week’s debate, we heard a lot about tax plans and cuts, energy, health care and jobs, but nothing on the real estate market. Nothing…This year’s presidential candidates have mostly avoided discussing an industry that’s largely responsible for the last five years of economic pain. But why?

For sure, the subject of housing remains an extremely sensitive one. President Obama might prefer that the real estate market, whose imbalances sparked the financial crisis, to remain a ghost issue because of a lackluster record at combating the foreclosure epidemic. He is also blamed for not doing enough on the loan modification front with the dismal HAMP and HARP programs. Mitt Romney, meanwhile, might like to steer clear of the topic because a hard stance on housing could alienate voters whom he needs to win. I’m not here to debate one particular side or candidate, but rather to simply pose the question of why no talk on real estate?

Obama Falls Short of Expectations?

“Obama’s major housing initiatives have fallen short of expectations, and so Obama doesn’t have big victories to point to,” said Jed Kolko, chief economist for listing service Trulia. “The housing market is still struggling in many parts of the country, so this is not a problem that’s been solved.” The administration’s flagship relief program, the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), has helped 1 million homeowners obtain lower interest rates, principal reductions, more time to pay their mortgages or any combination of the three. But that pales in comparison to the 3 to 4 million homeowners whom the program was supposed to help. Meanwhile, the Home Affordable Refinance Program (HARP), designed to help 5 million homeowners refinance their mortgages into lower interest rates, has benefited only about 1.5 million homeowners.

Romney Gun-Shy On Housing?

Romney’s housing platform includes the potential elimination of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and that prospect may be just too scary and radical to everyday voters and homeowners who have relied on the government giants to stabilized the formerly free-falling real estate market. “To stake out what you think Fannie and Freddie’s future is is to alienate somebody,” commented Mark Calabria, director of financial regulation studies at the Cato Institute. “Realtors and home builders tend to be politically active — and Republicans,” noted Mr. Calabria. Indeed, Romney’s free-market stance on housing, if articulated bluntly, could unsettle many distressed homeowners as well. He has said that he believes that the housing market should naturally “hit bottom,” and has harshly criticized Obama’s relief programs.

Let’s Get The Housing Dialogue Going!

Over the past several months, I’ve enjoyed healthy (and even civil) political discussion on the issues on my Facebook feed. (Please join in!). The real estate market and housing always comes up, whether it’s in the context of folks not able to refinance their underwater mortgages, the loss of their equity, or the impact of unemployment on the general real estate sector. Granted, the real estate market has made significant gains since the bottom fell out in 2008, but folks are still hurting out there and it’s really been the Fed and its low interest rates which have largely kept the market from imploding. So, we should be talking about all the issues. And that means federally assisted refinancing for underwater mortgages, Fed policy on interest rates, and the future of the GSE’s. Oh and by the way, where did all that foreclosure crisis settlement money go? I have yet to hear about anyone who has received any assistance from that fund.

Well, if Obama and Romney aren’t going to talk housing and real estate, we can do it here on this blog. Feel free to post your comments, diatribes or soapbox speeches in the comment section below. You can use the Facebook comments too. Keep the debate civil please!

{ 4 comments }

SJC To Hear “North End Ten’s” Challenge To Revitalization of Long Wharf

by Rich Vetstein on October 2, 2012

in Commercial Real Estate, Environmental Law, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Permitting/Zoning, Zoning

Fate of New Long Wharf Waterfront Restaurant At Stake

A neighborhood fight to preserve prime public waterfront space at the tip of Boston’s Long Wharf will be heard by the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) in November. Ten North End neighbors — termed the “North End Ten” —  have been battling the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) and the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for six years over the city’s plan to lease the space to a restaurateur who wants to build “Doc’s Long Wharf,” a new pub style restaurant and bar at the scenic location. Residents argue that the state constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the Legislature before public open space can be converted to other uses.

The legal issues in the case are rather complicated, dealing with historic uses of Long Wharf and whether it was dedicated to public use as open space and is thus protected under Article 97 of the Massachusetts Constitution, requiring a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to effect a disposition or change in use of the land. The BRA’s original proposal was for a 220-seat pub that would have replaced the pavilion located beyond the Marriott Long Wharf hotel and Chart House restaurant. BRA officials have argued that the restaurant would help activate the waterfront. Residents argued it would create more noise and disturbance in a picturesque park area.

This case really exemplifies why Massachusetts and the City of Boston have a bad reputation for real estate permitting. If you ever been down to this area at the tip of Long Wharf, you know it’s screaming out for better use. Right now, it’s often inhabited by skateboarders and vagrants, annoying folks trying to soak in the beautiful views of Boston Harbor. I think that a nice restaurant with stunning harbor views and an outdoor patio area would be amazing and a great addition to the under-utilized end of that pier. Under the proposed Chapter 91 license, the proposed use would maintain public access along the wharf. It was the same situation with Rowes Wharf decades ago, and now look at that space. It is a model of waterfront mixed use development.

But 10 neighborhood activists disagree, and the travesty is that they can derail this project for years. Indeed, the lead plaintiff, Sanjoy Mahajan, lives a mile away from Long Wharf on Jackson Street. The other plaintiffs are scattered throughout North End proper, buffered from the proposed restaurant by the massive Marriott Long Wharf, the harbor and Christopher Columbus Park. These activists are not remotely affected by the proposed restaurant in terms of noise and the like. Notably, not one resident of Harbor Towers, the residential condominium closest to Long Wharf, have participated in this legal challenge.

I hope that even if the SJC rules that a 2/3rds legislative vote is required here, that our elected officials will not cave in to the whims of a few locals at the expense of the public at large.

______________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is a Massachusetts real estate and zoning attorney. Mr. Vetstein frequently represents Boston residents and companies in zoning matters before City of Boston zoning and licensing boards.

{ 1 comment }

Massachusetts SJC To Decide Three Important Foreclosure Cases This Fall Term

by Rich Vetstein on September 26, 2012

in Foreclosure, Land Court, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Mortgage Crisis, Mortgages

Court Will Consider Mortgage Servicer/MERS Standing and Statutory Foreclosure Affidavits

The Supreme Judicial Court has a busy Fall Term with several important foreclosure cases on the docket. Here’s a quick summary.

HSBC Bank v. Jodi Matt (SJC-11101)

The SJC is considering whether a mortgage servicer holding a securitized mortgage has standing to even begin a foreclosure action in the Land Court under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act–one of the first steps in the Massachusetts foreclosure process. I wrote about this case in a prior post here. This ruling will affect just about every conventional mortgage foreclosure in the state. The lower court Land Court opinion can be read here.  The court asked for friend-of-the-court briefs, and the Real Estate Bar Association filed a brief supporting the foreclosing lenders. Glenn Russell’s brief for the appellant Jodi Matt can be read here.

Oral arguments were held in early September, but unfortunately the webcast is unavailable. One of my sources told me that the justices were very active and peppered both attorneys with lots of questions.

Following the recent Eaton v. FNMA case, which held that a mortgage servicer may foreclosure upon a showing of proper agency and authority, I predict that the Court will ultimately hold that servicers and lenders holding rights to securitized mortgages have legal standing to start the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act proceeding, even if they merely hold a contractual right to the actual mortgage. The most compelling rationale for such a ruling is that the only purpose of the Servicemember proceeding is to ascertain whether the borrower is in active military service. It is not intended to be a forum to litigate issues relating to the propriety of securitized mortgage transfers and contractual standing.

Federal National Mortgage Ass’n v. Hendricks (SJC 11234)

This case has the potential to change Massachusetts foreclosure practice. The issue presented is whether the long-standing Massachusetts statutory form foreclosure affidavit that the foreclosing lender has complied with the foreclosure laws is on its face sufficient. The case will also decide whether the statutory power of sale form, originally drafted in 1912, is also facially sufficient. The docket and briefs filed in the case can be found here.

The case originated from the Boston Housing Court where Hendricks fought his post-foreclosure eviction by Fannie Mae, asserting that the affidavits filed by Fannie Mae reciting compliance with the foreclosure statute were inadmissible and insufficient. A Housing Court judge disagreed, and upheld the foreclosure and the eviction.

With the well-publicized robo-signing controversy looming in the background, I would not be surprised if the SJC rules in favor of Hendricks here and in the process tightens up the requirements for filing foreclosure affidavits. Indeed, that is the trend with the Legislature’s recent passing of the Foreclosure Prevention Act. As with the Eaton v. FNMA ruling, the Court should likely make its ruling prospective and not retroactive so as to not disrupt titles in the Commonwealth.

Galiastro v. MERS (SJC DAR 20960)

The SJC just accepted direct appellate review from the Appeals Court in this interesting case. This case will finally decide whether Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) has standing to foreclose in its own name. The case, however, is somewhat mooted because MERS no longer forecloses in its own name, but there are plenty of MERS foreclosures in back titles. The SJC has announced that it will solicit friend-of-the-court briefs on the issue of “whether MERS “has standing to pursue a foreclosure in its own right as a named ‘mortgagee’ with ability to act limited solely as a ‘nominee’ and without any ownership interest or rights in the promissory note associated with the mortgage; whether the prospective mandate of Eaton v. Federal National Mortgage Association, 462 Mass. 569 (2012), applies to cases that were pending on appeal at the time that case was decided.” This case will be argued in April 2013. I will have analysis after that.

_____________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts real estate attorney with an expertise in foreclosure related issues. You can contact him at [email protected].

 

{ 0 comments }

FHA Softens Condominium Lending Guidelines, But Barriers Remain

by Rich Vetstein on September 13, 2012

in Condominium Law, FHA, HUD, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Mortgages

Condo Sales May Get Slight Boost, But Financing Rules Remain Tight

Responding to lender, condominium association and consumer outcry that the existing FHA condominium lending guidelines are too strict, the Federal Home Administration (FHA) on September 13, 2012 announced a round of changes which will hopefully make it easier for borrowers to qualify for FHA condo loans. The full FHA announcement can be found here.

While some of the changes are a step in the right direction, I think overall they are a mixed bag, as FHA left some of the most onerous provisions intact. I’m skeptical that these new changes will have a major impact on condominium sales, but of course, any loosening of the strict requirements is a good thing.

Condo Fee Delinquency Rule Increased to 60 Days Overdue
FHA is softening its stance on delinquent monthly condo fees and home owner association (HOA) dues. FHA is now allowing up to 15% of a project’s units to be 60-days delinquent on condo fees, up from just 30 days delinquent under the prior rule. This change acknowledges the depressed economy which has caused many condo unit owners to have trouble paying their condo fees. This is definitely a good change.

Expanded Investor Purchasing Allowed
Under the new rules, investors can come in and buy more units in a project than they could previously. They can now buy up to 50% of the project units, up from just 10% before, but with an important caveat:  the developer must convey at least 50% of the units to individual owners or be under contract as owner-occupied.

Owner Occupancy Limits and Total FHA Financing Percentage Unchanged
The biggest disappointment of the new rules is that the main impediment to FHA condo financing remains unchanged, and that’s the 50% rule. Before any new buyer can obtain FHA financing, 50% of a project’s units be sold to third party buyers. This is what I’ve called the Catch-22. FHA provides the most first time home financing, so how can a developer expect to sell out his project if he cannot offer initial FHA financing? Doesn’t make any sense. I agree with the National Association of Realtors and the Community Association Institute on this one. Get rid of the 50% rule or decrease it to 25% or less.

Another restriction that hasn’t changed is the number of units that can have an FHA-backed loan. Only half the units can have FHA financing, so a borrower can’t get FHA approval if his unit would put the number of FHA financed units over 50%. That limitation remains unchanged, and that’s a killer for a lot of projects.

Spot Approvals Remain Dead
Mortgage lenders used to love FHA “spot approvals” which could by-pass the involved standard FHA approval process in order to get individual unit financing. Problem was is that they love spot approvals way too much, and they got abused. Ah, a few bad apples ruin it for everyone. FHA did not resurrect spot approvals from the dead on this go-around. Maybe they will be back when the economy gets better.

More Commercial Space OK
Projects can also have more space devoted to non-residential commercial uses than before. You see this a now in Boston with Starbucks and a bank office on the ground floor of a new condominium building. Up to this point, only 25% of project space could be used for commercial purpose. Now 50% of the project can be commercial, although certain authority for approval is reserved for the local FHA office. This will benefit the newer mixed use projects in urban markets.

Fidelity Insurance Coverage Required

Important for all condominium professional management companies. If the condominium engages the services of a management company, the company must obtain its own fidelity coverage meeting the FHA association coverage requirements or the association’s policy must name the management company as an insured, or the association’s policy must include an endorsement stating that management company employees subject to the direction and control of the association are covered by the policy. This is a substantial change to the previous requirements that required management companies to obtain separate fidelity insurance for each condominium.

______________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts condominium attorney who regularly advises condominium associations on FHA certification issues. Please contact Mr. Vetstein at [email protected].


{ 1 comment }

Worcester Catholic Church Pulled Out of Mansion Sale To Prevent Gay Marriages, Lawsuit Says

by Rich Vetstein on September 10, 2012

in Condominium Law, Disclosures, Housing Discrimination, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Purchase and Sale Agreements, Real Estate Litigation

Worcester Diocese Allegedly Pulled Out of Deal Over Possibility Of Gay Marriages at Mansion

James Fairbanks and Alain Beret, married business partners from Sutton, had been searching for the perfect property for nearly two years when they discovered Oakhurst, an aging mansion on 26 beautiful acres in Northbridge. The former retreat center, which was affiliated with the Diocese of Worcester and had been on the market for some time, would be the ideal spot for their next venture: an inn that would host weddings and other big events, as reported by the Boston Globe. When the Diocese of Worcester unexpectedly dropped out of negotiations with them in June, Fairbanks and Beret were shocked — and flummoxed. Then, they say, a church attorney inadvertently forwarded their broker an e-mail from Monsignor Thomas Sullivan, chancellor of the diocese, advising a church broker that he was no longer interested in selling to Fairbanks and Beret “because of a potentiality of gay marriages” there.

Sullivan wrote: “I just went down the hall and discussed it with the bishop.  Because of the potentiality of gay marriages there, something you shared with us yesterday, we are not interested in going forward with these buyers. I think they’re shaky anyway. So, just tell them that we will not accept their revised plan and the diocese is making new plans for the property. You find the language.”

Today, the gay couple filed what could be a landmark lawsuit in Worcester Superior Court against Sullivan, the bishop, the church’s real estate agent, and the nonprofit retreat center, the House of Affirmation, alleging they discriminated against Beret and Fairbanks on the basis of sexual orientation in the course of a real estate negotiation, violating state law. A copy of the Complaint in Fairbanks, et al. v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Worcester, et al. is embedded below.

A spokesperson for the church told the Globe that the church, as a matter of policy, will not sell properties where Masses have been celebrated to people who plan to host same-sex weddings. The church will not sell to developers who plan to transform them into abortion clinics either, he said — or to bars, lounges, or other kinds of uses that church officials deem inappropriate. “We wouldn’t sell our churches and our properties to any of a number of things that would reflect badly on the church,” he said. “These buildings are sacred to the memory of Catholics.”

In an even more ironic twist, the Diocese previously used the mansion for a retreat center for pedophile priests, according to Banker & Tradesman.

Watching this case play out will certainly be very interesting both from a legal and political perspective. Massachusetts — the birthplace of gay marriage — is one of the few states in the country which outlaws housing discrimination based on sexual orientation. One of the questions will be whether the Church is covered under the anti-discrimination law given their historical stance against homosexuals and gay marriage.

Also, as I pointed out to a reporter covering this story, the church could have negotiated a restriction on the future use of the property, which is common for sales involving open space, recreational use and such. It appears that the church did not do this, but instead came up with a pre-textual reason after the fact to support their decision not to proceed with the sale due to the gay marriage issue. We will be monitoring this interesting case!

_____________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is a Massachusetts real estate attorney with offices in Framingham and Needham, Mass. He can be reached at [email protected].

Complaint | Fairbanks v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Worcester, Mass.

{ 0 comments }

The Renters Are Back! Questions You Can and Cannot Ask Prospective Tenants In Massachusetts

by Rich Vetstein on August 30, 2012

in Housing Discrimination, Landlord Tenant Law, Lead Paint, Leasing, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Realtors, Rental Housing

School is back and summer is over. September 1 and the start of the new rental cycle is right around the corner. It’s time to review my best practices to get trouble-free, paying tenants in your Massachusetts rental property.

Screening Prospective Massachusetts Renters: What You Can and Cannot Ask

Landlords can legally ask prospective renters about the following:

  • income and current employment
  • prior landlord references
  • credit history
  • criminal history

Your rental application should include a full release of all credit history and CORI (Criminal Offender Registry Information). Use CORI information with caution, however, and offer the tenant an opportunity to explain any issues. Landlords should also check the Sex Offender Registry as they can be held liable for renting to a known offender. Use the rental application and other forms from the Greater Boston Real Estate Board.

Landlords cannot ask about the following:

  • race, color, national origin, ancestry, or gender
  • sexual orientation
  • age
  • marital status
  • religion
  • military/veteran status
  • disability, receipt of public assistance
  • children.

If you deny a renter’s application, it should be based on financial reasons, such as questionable credit, income or rental history. Stay away from reasons related to children, public assistance and the like. Be aware that this time of year the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination and Attorney General’s Office send out dummy rental applicants in an attempt to catch unwary landlords who deny housing for discriminatory reasons.

Students, especially undergraduates, often create problems for landlords. It’s important to meet with students personally before signing the lease and firmly explain a “no tolerance” policy against excessive noise, parties and misbehavior. Remember, under a two year old Boston zoning ordinance, no more than four (4) full time undergraduate students may live together in a single apartment.

Careful screening of tenants is far less expensive than the cost of evicting a problem tenant.

My Property Has Lead Paint. Can I Refuse To Rent to Tenants With Small Kids?

The answer is no, but many landlords do so (unlawfully) under the guise of financial reasons. The Attorney General has been cracking down on these practice:  Two Local Real Estate Firms Fined By Mass. Attorney General For Lead Paint Housing Discrimination.

Under the Massachusetts Lead Paint Law, whenever a child under six years of age comes to live in a rental property, the property owner has a responsibility to discover whether there is any lead paint on the property and to de-lead to protect the young children living there. A property owner or real estate agent cannot get around the legal requirements to disclose information about known lead hazards simply by refusing to rent to families with young children. They also cannot refuse to renew the lease of a pregnant woman or a family with young children just because a property may contain lead hazards. Landlords cannot refuse to rent simply because they do not want to spend the money to de-lead the property. Any of these acts is a violation of the Lead Law, the Consumer Protection Act, and various Massachusetts anti-discrimination statutes that can have serious penalties for a property owner or real estate agent.

For more information about Massachusetts rental screening, landlord-tenant law and evictions, please read these articles or contact me below. I would be happy to help you get good tenants.

___________________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts real estate and eviction attorney. For more information, please contact him at 508-620-5352 or [email protected].

{ 4 comments }

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →